https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult Would Tony say this? - “We only have to copy the past. Look how successful they were. Why rock the boat with new info?”
theory has grown like a ramshackle farmhouse which has been added to, and
improved, by the additions of successive tenants to satisfy their momentary
needs, and with little regard for the future. We regard it with affection. We
have grown used to the leaks in the roof .... But our haphazard house cannot
survive for ever, and it must ultimately be replaced by a successor whose
beauty is of structure rather than of sentiment.
- H W Heckstall-Smith, Intermediate Electrical Theory, pub. Dent, 1932, p283.
Google search for “science is the search for truth” gives 3,000,000 hits. Now for the betrayers;
Its new betrayal; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x231.pdf
“Deciding about ‘truth’ is the domain of philosophers; and engineers, scientists and technologists are wise to keep away from that in their work.” – Tony Davies, 3.1.2020
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x231.pdf The trouble is, the instrumentalists who today command all the commanding heights of “science” may not know any philosophy of science, history of science, sociology of science. John Dore FIEE only now (after 40 years) told me he did not care whether he was on the side of Galileo or Bellarmino! Why have I only now realised that the story of “The Glitch” is incompatible with instrumentalism? It must be that I failed to study a philosophy as absurd as “The Truth that there are no truths”. But now these absurd people control all of what was “science”, and block scientific advance, which would cause a hiccough in their careers. A glittering career needs a stable launch-pad. “Research” has to be limited to adding decoration to the established canon. They call this “academia and structured research”. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59v.pdf
Better version; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8cktony.pdf
The Betrayal of Science
The Instrumentalist’s Manifesto
[It is only a theory that phlogiston does not exist. When teaching, the more clutter, the better. Keeps them quiet.]
Tue, Dec 18,2018, 10.21 PM ( http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/d.htm Theories C, D)
Professor Tony Davies was on the Board of Directors of the IEEE, 400,000 members, the senior institution for electromagnetic theory.
For what it is worth, just a brief comment based on a quick read of this:
While I was an electrical engineering undergraduate at Southampton University (from where I left with a BSc(Eng) in 1961 to go to GEC in Coventry, it was my understanding that Theory H was the 'correct one'. and I have not had any reason so far to change that view. That is not to say the Theory H is correct, there might be something better, but I do not know enough of field theory to decide about that.
As I have mentioned before my 'roots' are in circuit theory which I have never claimed to be a description of reality, but is an extremely helpful basis for designing useful things, which have performance close enough to the results from circuit theory that this is sensible and for many applications remains the best way to get to those useful outcomes.
[Tony will not answer the question; “Should you knowingly lie to students in order to help an electrician to wire up a house? - IC]
Do not forget that since there is no distance dimension in circuit theory, a transmission line approximated by one thousand ideal capacitors and inductors (of the text book type) can easily be fitted on to the point of a very sharp pin (and there is stilll room for all those medieval angels as well, if you choose to also believe in that).
Perhaps some would wonder why Theory N persists if it is incorrect. Leaving out the complexity of understanding what ExH means, and describing electricity by analogy with water flowing through pipes, etc. has been and still is, a sufficient explanation for many amateur and professional electrical technicians who have to install and repair electrical installations in buildings and understand the IET Wiring Regulations, etc. For the general non-scientific public it is probably better to tell them that electricity is a flow of electrons and that these can move quite freely in a conductor, making it warm in the process, and melting it if there is too much current because it gets too warm. Such ideas are helpful in other situations such as the design of water-based piped central heating systems where the designer has to work out the required pump pressure (like voltage) and the diameter of the pipes (like resistors) in order to carry the required water flow (like current) to the radiators (which are actually producing most of their heat by convection rather than radiation). It is only necessary to know that the 'resistance' has a square law relationship to pump pressure and water flow to understand that the iterative calculations done by central heating designers are what an electric circuit engineer would do to analyse electrical resistive networks made up of square law resistors - e.g. it is not just linear simultaneous equations, one has to use an iterative method such as Newton-Raphson (which, of course is unknown to most central heating installers). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method
I hope that all this gives you something nice to dream about over the coming holiday season.
2018 Dec 18th
John Dore FIET says he agrees with the above
John Dore FIET recently said he does not care whether he is on the side of Galileo or Bellarmino.
Any denial by him will be added here.
From Dore; My research interests trump wasted thoughts! ... be productive for a change!!! 16.3.2019
Mon, Mar 18, 12:02 PM (1 day ago)
My research interests include:
1. Computer simulation and emulation in both hardware (fpga and micro computers)
2. Macros and macro compilers and compiler-compilers
3. Finite element methods for structures and electrical problems
4. Parallel computing
These are quite enough to occupy me constructively
I would draw your attention to courses run by mooc contributor edx
eg structures run by Princeton university at zero cost
I have recently completed such a course on the design of shell roofs.
It includes appropriate computations.
I think what I am doing is far more valuable than contemplating truths, facts and the various philosophical diversions in which you seek to interest yourself.
There have always been dysfunctional families throughout history but in Roman times knife crime was committed by the well healed from good families.
The reason for knife crime in the UK is a function of the availability and use of drugs predominately by a particular segment of society.
It would be good if you could make it to the lecture just off the Strand at BCS HQ next Thursday at 2:30pm. You just book online CCS BCS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The question ”How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" " (alternatively "How many angels can stand on the point of a pin?") is a reductio ad absurdumof medieval scholasticism in general, and its angelology in particular, as represented by figures such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. It is first recorded in the 17th century, in the context of Protestant apologetics. The question has also been linked to the fall of Constantinople, with the imagery of scholars debating about minutiae while the Turks besieged the city. In modern usage, it therefore has been used as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence, while more urgent concerns accumulate.
re cattq, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm , Howie is a westerner. Pepper, who reported to him as head of the Cavendish, is a southerner. (Both at Trinity.) They refuse to discuss their disagreement with each other or with us..
10:08 AM (8 hours ago)
10:08 AM (8 hours ago)
Thanks for our message. I admire your tenacity over EM theory which I'm
sure keeps your brain firing away. I have never met Alex Yakovlev and
had not even heard of him until maybe 6 months ago I came across his
Phil Trans paper with its fulsome references to the work of you and your
colleagues. Following our strenuous but unsuccessful efforts many years
ago to resolve the difference between us, I am however not at all
attracted by the idea of revisiting them!
In the past few months the "standard" EM theory that you dislike [no; I want to be told what it is! See cattq.] I have
been applying to compute the energy loss experienced by a fast electron
beam. This travels in the z direction and is highly focused to about
0.2nm in the x-y plane, when it passes just outside a dielectric
material. This theory gives a very good account of many experimental
observations. Of course by some amazing fluke it may still succeed when
built on a foundation [Howie’s or Pepper’s?] that you believe to be incorrect but so far I am
not convinced. [Why does he not discuss his disagreement with Pepper on fundamentals - cattq? – IC]
Here we see that Howie is an instrumentalist. - IC
You may recall that long ago I encouraged you to get your ideas
published in Physics Education in the guise of a challenge to the
teaching of EM. I shared some of your disappointment and frustration
when, after accepting it, they pulled out from publication.
[ http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j34.pdf p38 ref.1
[ Inst Phys broke their contract to publish it
[ after accepting for publication
Later published here;
At least Yakovlev has now managed to get some account of your theory
the scientific literature and we can await reactions. I am not too
confident that much will emerge however since the serious readership of
most published papers is now close to zero. Most papers or now read by
bots as I discovered when a paper I recently submitted to
Ultramicroscopy was accepted. Within a few hours (while it was still
listed as an on-line paper in the publication pipeline) I got first an
email from some organisation telling me that a number of people had
already consulted my paper and that I could find out who they were by
signing up with them. Hard on the heels of this came a second message
offering for sale a mug on which the first page of my paper would be
…. …. I shared some of your disappointment and frustration
when, after accepting it, they pulled out from publication.” – AH
A few decades later the journal published an attack on me and the editor refused to let me reply.
“Physics Education”, a journal of the Institute of Physics. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x311a.htm
On 2019-03-28 21:11, Ivor Catt wrote:
> Dear Archie,
> I would greatly value your comment on
> HTTP://WWW.IVORCATT.CO.UK/YAK7.HTM 
>  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/yak7.htm
“For my part, I assert that the concept "Energy" was propounded. This is absolutely true, and has nothing to do with my point of view. It is an objective fact, not subjective. It is also absolutely true that no other person slept in my bed last night, apart from me. This is not a subjective view; it is objective fact. It is absolutely true that at this moment I am typing into a computer. We are immersed in a sea of objective facts. (We have direct access to them, not needing the mediation of paid knowledge brokers.) Anyone who denies the existence of these facts must deny the purpose of any communication whatsoever, and so should shut up. Communication is a superstructure based on an array of agreed absolute facts. Denial of the existence of any facts necessarily implies denial of the possibility of communication. We are left merely with mutually supportive noises of uncertain import.
In a lecture, the test of absolute truth is to ask a dissident in the audience whether it is absolutely true that he is attempting to listen to a lecture. If he demurs, he has to be ejected from the lecture hall because he is an intellectual terrorist. He denies the possibility of developing and extending a body of knowledge. The fact that he is merely going along with the vandals who have captured learning throughout most of the twentieth century does not excuse his nihilism.
For my part, I say that I hereby intend to write a sentence which starts and ends with the word "For". I have also probably succeeded, but this next step is unnecessary in order to establish an absolute truth, about my intention. Even more succinct, I intended to start and end a sentence with the same word. Absolutely true. Anyone who disputes this is disputing the possibility of any meaningful communication whatsoever, and so should not be talking, since they believe they are wasting their and our time. Disputing the validity of this exercise, the disputant is asked to communicate something (anything) within their nihilistic universe of discourse (and such activity serves a purpose). They will fail. Thus, I believe the assertion "There are no absolute truths" becomes the assertion "No inter-communication is possible". Thus, we are left only with "views", or states of mind, and all we can do is commune together.”